> The royalty is being paid in the OS licence attached to the viewer's computer, basically.
So who is paying for Linux? Or is Linux using open source alternatives to these fonts?
So who is paying for Linux? Or is Linux using open source alternatives to these fonts?
Most Linux users use only free fonts, some of which are metrically equivalent with the more popular Windows fonts, so they will substitute those in documents and Web pages.
Some Linux users, like also some of the users of other operating systems, may use unlicensed copies of some popular fonts.
They have included only a few fonts licensed from Monotype, e.g. Arial.
Besides the fonts donated by Microsoft, there are many other free fonts that have been donated by big companies like Google, Adobe, Intel, URW, Bitstream, JetBrains and others.
There are also many free fonts donated by individual creators.
But the versions of the font files in that package are rusting at this point; there's no compelling reason to use them anywhere, IMO.
By "donate" I have meant that the typeface owners have forsaken the revenues corresponding to the licensing fees that they have stopped demanding, allowing the free use of those typefaces. It can be said that they have donated the value of the work that was needed to create those typefaces.
You are also right that now this Corefonts package is mostly of historical interest, because the included fonts are very old. Unlike these, the corresponding Windows fonts have been maintained, by fixing bugs and adding new Unicode characters.